Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/652

Wg. Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amritbir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Jain

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

 (1)                       First Appeal No.652 of 2012

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 24.05.2012  

                                                          Date of Decision:  17.08.2015

 

Wg. Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva ,resident  of House No.273, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                    …..Appellant/applicant

         

                                      Versus

 

1.      Amritbir Singh son of late Major Bahadur Singh, resident of     H.No.4573, MIG Super (GF), Sector 70, Mohali.

 

                                                                   ..Respondent/Complainant

 

2.      GMADA (Greater Mohali Area Development Authority), PUDA          Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Estate    Officer/Additional Chief Administrator.                                                              

                                                          ….Respondent/Opposite party

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 26.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.     

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                             :  Sh.Sandeep Jain, Advocate

          For the respondent no.         1       :  Sh.Kulwinder Singh, Advocate

          For the respondent no.2.      :  Sh.Balwinder Singh, Advocate

 

                                                   AND

 

(2)               First Appeal No.697 of 2012

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 30.05.2012

                                                          Date of Decision:  17.08.2015

 

GMADA (Greater Mohali Area Development Authority) PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar Mohali, through its Estate Officer/Additional Chief Administrator.

                                                                                                                                                                             …..Appellant/Opposite party

         

                                      Versus

 

Amritbir Singh son of Late Major Bahadur Singh, resident of 4573, MIG Super (GF), Sector 70, Mohali.

 

 

                                                          …..Respondent /Complainant

 

 

         

First Appeals against order dated 26.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.

         

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                             :  Sh.Balwinder Singh, Advocate

          For the respondent               :  Sh.Kulwinder Singh, Advocate

          For the applicant                             :  Sh.Sandeep Jain, Advocate.

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

          By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above referred two First Appeals , as they can be conveniently disposed of together, because they have arisen out of the same order dated 26.04.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mohali. Order shall be pronounced in First Appeal No.652 of 2012. First Appeal No.652 of 2012 has been filed by Wg. Cdr Inder Singh Sachdev appellant, who is original allotee and non-party in the complaint against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.04.2012 of District Consumer Forum Mohali praying for setting aside the same. Second connected First Appeal No.697 of 2012 has been preferred by GAMADA (the opposite party in the complaint) against the order of the District Forum Mohali dated 26.04.2012, accepting the complaint and setting aside the letter dated 17.01.2012 and restoring Plot No.792, Sector 79 in the name of the complainant and further directing OPs to issue the requisite allotment letter in writing in favour of complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, besides Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. Two separate appeals have been preferred, one by Wg. Cdr Inder Singh Sachdev appellant, who is original allotee and non-party in the complaint, which is First Appeal No.652 of 2012 and second First Appeal No.697 of 2012 has been preferred by OP now appellant, challenging the order of the District Forum Mohali, accepting the complaint of the complainant.

2.      The complainant Amritbir Singh has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP, on the averments that Wg. Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva s/o Teja Singh Sachdeva  applied for a plot under defence quota with OP, vide form no.17279  and date of form is 1.1.2001. The OP conducted the draw of lots and issued letter of intent (LOI)  for the residential plots measuring 300 sq. yards in DPER Category on 30.03.2001. Amritbir Singh complainant applied for the transfer of the plot allotted in the name of Wg. Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva by submitting the application form with OP with all formalities and deposited Rs.6625/-, vide receipt no.74 for transfer of plot in his name. OP transferred the letter of intent in the name of the complainant, vide memo no.19568 dated 28.06.2001. The OP clearly wrote in transfer letter that the documents were found in order and complainant was found eligible under the category of DPER. The complainant received letter dated 30.4.2008, 4.7.2008 from OP for giving some documents of original allottee. The complainant gave reply to OPs that since as per transfer letter, all documents were received and scrutinized by the OP's officials and as such LOI stood in the name of the complainant. The complainant also submitted domicile certificate, identity proof of original allottee and affidavit to the OPs. The OP sent letter dated 19.3.2010 to complainant to give domicile certificate of original allottee, failing which the LOI would stand cancelled and complainant deposited the installment as demanded by the OP. The scheme of the OP to allot the plot was delayed due to some litigation. The OP conducted draw of lot. The complainant remained unsuccessful both times, but complainant was lucky to get the allotment of House No.792 in Sector 79, Mohali in the third draw of lots. The complainant submitted letter to OP to issue allotment letter on 11.03.2010. The complainant received letters from OP on 10.5.2010 and on 18.06.2010 for not depositing the domicile certificate of original allottee and, thus, to contact the original allottee and to send domicile certificate to OP within a week. The complainant requested the OP to take his case sympathetically since he purchased the plot from above Wg. Cdr. Inder Singh Sachdeva only after getting the nod from PUDA officials and after scrutiny of his documents. The OP gave reply on 18.1.2011 to the applications of the complainant dated 10.5.2010 and 18.6.2010 repeating same orders for supply of the documents from original allottee. The complainant received copy of letter issued in the name of the original allottee being Wg.Cdr. Inder Singh Sachdeva. Since letter of intent was also transferred to the complainant and he has submitted all the documents as well as installments, as required by the OP, hence, cancellation of the plot and sending letter to original allottee is deficient service. The officials of the OP made three allotments and cases were taken by High Power Committee of the PUDA in which the case of the complainant was also taken up at para no.3 and the allottees were issued letter of intent due to negligence of the officials of the OPs and OPs transferred LOI in the name of the new person. In case these transfers were not approved by the new purchaser the bonafide purchaser was visiting office of the GAMADA and received unnecessary harassment. The recommendation of the High Power Committee was approved by the government on 14.10.2011 and the agenda item no.17.04 at Page 4 to the effect that the resolution was approved and further directions were issued that those employees, who have issued LOI wrongly, disciplinary departmental action be taken against them and FIR should be registered against them. Letter of intent stands in the name of Amritbir Singh, whereas OP sent cancellation letter in the name of the original allottee. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint directing the OP to cancel the letter dated 17.1.2012 and to re-allot the plot in the name of the complainant to issue allotment letter, besides Rs.3 lac  for mental harassment and Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OP filed written reply, raising preliminary objections that jurisdiction of the consumer forum is excluded, as per condition no.20 of the brochure inviting the applications for allotment of the plots in Sector 76-80 in SAS Nagar Mohali. There is provision for referring the matter to Chief Administrator or any other person appointed by him, as Arbitrator and decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding. It was further pleaded that the application form contained and specifically mentioned that if any information furnished by the person in the application form or furnished later on, at any stage is found to be incorrect, false, the authority shall have right to forfeit the entire amount in addition to imposing any penalty. Inder Singh Sachdeva to whom LOI was issued on 13.3.2001 gave wrong information, hence allotment was deemed to be cancelled ab initio.  The original allottee has availed the quota of the house in Chandigarh out of the defence category, as admitted by him. The allotment is deemed to be cancelled from the very beginning and the original allottee Inder Singh Sachdeva has no right to transfer the LOI. Hence, there is no cause of action for the complainant to file the present complaint. Original allottee had supplied wrong information, hence the LOI was deemed to be cancelled. It was mentioned in the letter that transfer shall be covered by the conditions contained in the brochure of the scheme, as well as and original letter of intent of the plot from Inder Singh Sachdeva to complainant is illegal. OP served a letter demanding the original domicile letter of the original allottee and a certificate from the competent Defence Office regarding the defence category, which was not supplied to OP by the complainant. The complainant was bound to submit the original required documents before allotment of the plot, because documents were scrutinized after draw of the lots, which has been mentioned in para no.1 of the LOI dated 30.03.2011. OP issued notice to the original allottee to come present before Estate Officer through his counsel and later on admitted, vide his letter in the office of OP on 17.11.2012 that the complainant is his brother-in-law and he had transferred the same as a goodwill gesture. He further stated that due to his misunderstanding, he applied for the plot and requested not to proceed against him and further showed readiness to surrender the LOI/plot in dispute along with this letter. On 23.09.2011, under the President ship of Principal Secretary Punjab, the matter was discussed and under the Head No.17.04 regarding the defects in the scrutiny of the plots of Sector 76 to 80 and it was decided that the departmental action be taken against the employees/officers who are responsible for the plot transfer and further decided to lodge the FIR against them. Accordingly, departmental action was being taken against erring officials and OP prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.  

4.      The complainant filed rejoinder in support of his averments. The complainant tendered in evidence  affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/1 along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-24. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Kamal Kumar Estate Officer/OP Ex.RW-1/1 along with copies of the documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Mohali accepted the complaint of the complainant and setting aside the order of the cancellation conveyed by Estate Officer of the OP, vide impugned letter dated 17.01.2012 Ex.C-20-A and set aside the allotment of plot no.792 Sector 79 in the name of the complainant at Mohali. The OP was further directed to issue requisite allotment letter in writing in favour of the complainant and was also awarded compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. A copy of this order was also sent to Secretary Housing and Urban Development Punjab and Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab to ensure taking of disciplinary action against erring officers/officials, as directed by the Executive Committee of the OP. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Mohali two  separate appeals have been preferred against the order of District Forum Mohali 26.04.2012, one by Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva, which is First Appeal No.652 of 2012 and second First Appeal No.697 of 2012 by OP now appellant in this appeal.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record of the case. The affidavit of Amritbir Singh complainant Ex.CW-1/1 is on the record. He has sworn the facts on oath in this affidavit, as pleaded in the complaint by him. Ex.C-1 is Form No.17279 in the name of Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva with regard to deposit of Rs.1,12,500/- with OP. Ex.C-2 is letter of intent of allotment of residential plot measuring 300 sq. yards in category DPER in Sector 76-80 in Urban Estate SAS Nagar Mohali  to Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva. From perusal of Annexure C-2 dated 30.03.2001, it is evident that the letter of intent was issued for the allotment of the plot to Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva. The application of Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva was found to be correct after scrutiny and letter of allocation was accordingly issued to him. Annexure C-3 is application form for transfer of the plot by Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva in the name of Amritbir Singh on the basis of the allotment letter dated 30.30.2001. Annexure C-4  is receipt regarding deposit of the amount of Rs.6625/- by Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva with OP. Annexure C-5 is document regarding transfer of letter of intent for the allotment of residential plot in Sector 76-80 measuring 300 sq. yards in Urban Estate SAS Nagar in the name of Armitbir Singh complainant on the basis of transfer application, duly supported by the documents in the office of OP. Application for transfer of the letter of intent and other documents along with transfer form were found to be correct and hence transfer of letter of intent in the name of Amritbir Singh was allowed.  Annexure C-6 and C-7 are letters sent to Amritbir Singh/complainant by OP for submission of the documents. Annexure C-8 is letter sent to OP by Amritbir Singh complainant. OP requested to stop his harassment, since he has purchased plot from Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva by depositing the transfer fee and Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva surrendering his original letter of intent. Annexure C-9 is another representation of the complainant to OP regarding treating his case sympathetically. Annexure C-10 is domicile certificate of Amritbir Singh complainant. Annexure C-11 is identity proof of Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva and Annexure C-12 is affidavit of Amritbir Singh with regard to his date of birth and domicile. Annexure C-13 is letter of OP to Amritbir Singh for sending domicile certificate of Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva. Annexure C-14 is receipt no.11 dated 6.07.2011 for Rs.168710/-. Annexure C-15 is representation submitted by Amritbir Singh complainant to Chief Administrator GMADA Mohali about his case. Copy of letter addressed by Estate Officer to complainant is Annexure C-16 on the record with regard to submitting domicile certificate of the Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva.  Annexure C-17 is document addressed to complainant by Estate Officer directing him to prove his case before the Estate Officer GAMADA. Annexure C-18 is reply sent by complainant. Annexure C-19 is brochure. Annexure C-20 is letter addressed by Estate Officer to complainant for submitting the documents, failing which the allotment of the plot would be cancelled. Annexure C-20/A is letter from Estate Officer to Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva regarding that he had transferred the letter of intent to Amritbir Singh S/o late Major Bahadar Singh, but he has not applied in defence category. Agenda Item No.17.04 is Annexure C-21 on the record may be considered by us with regard to non-compliance of the reserved category by some persons and non-compliance of defence category by some person. Name of the complainant figured in it in whose name, the plot has been transferred on the basis of the letter of intent. It was recommended that matter be put up before the Executive Committee for consideration regarding transfer of the plot in the name of Amritbir Singh Complainant. This documents have further proved that the Executive Committee agreed to give the exemption to those persons, whose name in the allotment have been transferred by the OP. Annexure C-22 is letter to the effect that matter was put up before the High Power Committee. High Power Committee decided the matter in its meeting and accordingly approved the Agenda Item No.17.04. It was decided by the High Power Committee that person in whose name on the basis of wrong information, the plots have been transferred by the Estate Officer, they should be regularized and legalized. The Estate Officer wrote letter to complainant, vide Annexure C-23 dated 11.2.2011 regarding submission of the documents under the RTI Act. Annexure C-24 is Revision Petition in which similar case of Natha Singh was legalized by the Additional Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development.

6.      To refute the evidence of the complainant, OP relied upon affidavit of Kamal Kumar Estate Officer GMADA SAS Nagar Mohali Ex.RW-1/1 is on the record and has been examined by us. Similarly, we have also examined the other documents of the OP placed on the record.

7.      The only point which emerged for adjudication before us is when once Executive Committee recommended to legalize the allotment in the name of the complainant, which was approved by High Power Committee, vide Annexure C-21 and C-22 on the record, hence, the contention raised by OP that original allotteee had applied under the defence category wrongly loses its sting. Once the Higher Authority has regularized the allotment of the plot on the basis of transfer in the name of the complainant, vide Annexure C-20 and C-22, hence OP cannot agitate before us that the allotment of the plot is liable to be cancelled because the original allottee Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva has wrongly applied  under defence category, hence letter of intent was wrongly issued to him. Similar, matter has been examined by Hon'ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.9462 of 2012 in Natha Singh versus GMADA and others and in Civil Writ Petition No.21409 of 2012 in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority versus Natha Singh and others decided on 26.11.2012, wherein it has been held by our High Court that once the authorities without verifying the correct facts and/or insisting upon the original allottee to produce the requisite documents establishing his eligibility, firstly issued the letter of intent and then accepted his request for transfer of LOI in favour of Pawan Sood in the above case. If there was some inadvertent negligence at the initial stage, it was held that by such infirmity or deficiency was not detected at the time, when letter of intent was issued by the authority. Our High Court has held that it was imperative upon them firstly not to entertain an application in the reserved category unless the requisite certificates/documents were appended therewith and in any case, the letter of intent in favour of a successful applicant ought not to have been issued before the scrutiny of documents appended with the application. Had there been some pre-cautionary measures taken on time, a situation like the present one could be averted. It has been held by our High Court that once agreement to sell is entered into, then seeking transfer of letter of intent in his favour along with consent given by original allottee would clothe him with the protective umbrella of a bonafide purchaser. Accordingly, our High Court has directed the authorities by holding that Letter of Intent is a transferable document, then there is every likelihood that a bonafide purchaser is duped to pay hefty consideration and then to face undue harassment, as has happened in the instant case. On the basis of the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court, we are of this view that the citied authority is fully applicable to the case in hand. Reference was also made to law laid down by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula, in HUDA & Anr. Versus K.C. Bhatia reported in 2011(1) CLT Page 60 but the facts situation of the cited case is not attracted to this case. In the cited case, the allotment of the plot was not made to the complainant and merely application of the complainant was under process for completion of the necessary formalities, hence he was not held a consumer. Reference was made to law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission New Delhi in Bhudhi Ram…. versus… Haryana Urban Development Authority and others reported in 2011(3) CLT that request/ letter of surrender of plot, reason bad for refund of the deposited amount received without protest and hence he ceased to be a consumer. This authority is distinguishable from the fact situation of the case in hand. Wg. Cdr. Inder Singh Sachdeva had purchased the plot, which was duly approved by OP and even High Power Committee also granted sanction to the complainant on the basis of the transfer and hence benefit can be had of this authority by the OP. Reference was made to law laid down by National Commission in Jai Pal Puri and Anr.  Versus.  Amritsar Improvement Trust & Ors., reported in 2008(1) CLT Page 544, but we find that this authority is not applicable in this case on account of different factual matrix of the case.

8.      As a result of our above discussion, we have come to this conclusion that order of the District Forum Mohali directing the OP to revoke the order of the cancellation conveyed by Estate Officer of OP, vide impugned letter dated 17.01.2012 Ex.C-20/A and to allot plot no.792 Sector 79 to the complainant calls for no interfence. The award of compensation is also affirmed in this case along with costs of litigation. With regard to direction passed by the District Forum regarding registration of the FIR against the erring employees to proceed against them by Chief Secretary of the State Government, we find that it is beyond the purview of the District Forum. It is for the concerned authorities to take departmental action against the erring employees and this direction of the District Forum is accordingly vacated by this Commission in this order. We find no merit in both appeals, First Appeal No.652 of 2012 filed by Wg.Cdr Inder Singh Sachdeva and second First Appeal No.697 of 2012 filed by OP now appellants before us. Both the above-referred appeals are hereby ordered to be dismissed.

9.      In First Appeal No.697 of 2012, the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainant/respondent by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order, as payable to the complainant. Remaining amount be paid within 45 days time from the date of receipt of this order by the appellant to the respondent/complainant.

10.    Arguments in these appeals were heard on 11.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

11.    The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

12.    Copy of this order be placed in FA No.697 of 2012.

 

                                                                     (J. S. KLAR)

                                                       PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                                   (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)                                                                                                                                                                                  MEMBER

August 17,  2015.                                                               

(ravi)